Interesting thoughts from Rob Foster in the latest AllAboutJazz arguing that students of the music can have their appreciation negatively affected by reading of musicians' problems, particularly surrounding given recording dates.
Foster cites newcomers to specific recordings evidencing negative reactions if they are told specific recordings were made under influence of drugs etc., citing Bird's famous "Lover Man" recording and similar others, as compared with those not informed passing good judgements on the same tracks.
My own view would be that the intimate relationship between performances and the circumstances surrounding them is of greater importance when it comes to jazz, whose spontaneous mode of expression is arguably more revealing than in classical music, where the composer adopts a mindset at one remove from the finished article, or for that matter any written down music. For me the problem of influencing a novice's viewpoint is as much to be explained by underlying prejudices or assumptions he or she brings to the session as by any standards regarding performance that have been imposed by authorities of whatever hue. If posts on this forum are to go by, many might appear to judge by comparison with previous events, recordings one has heard, or with other works by the same composer one judges better or worse: criteria which separate the serious jazz buff from the classical aficionado. I think Foster has something of a point but goes too far by situating the jazz listener in relation to the experience in the way one might view a listener strongly moved by hearing, say, Wagner for the first time, unaware that he was an antisemite and Hitler's favourite composer.
There should be one proviso, namely that the listener should first hear the music before being told of its circumstances. If that listener is moved by Charlie Parker's "Lover Man" solo - without knowing of its circumstances or the mental and physical state Parker was in at the time - then "jazz education" will have instilled its jazz induction in a manner accordant with the authentic spirit of the music, which is one that speaks through the music rather than through any narrative or predisposing pre-narrative. I do however believe further knowledge of the kind Foster claims to be pre-judgemental on the music is essential if one wants to delve into the essential background to gain full appreciation of this kind of music.
Foster cites newcomers to specific recordings evidencing negative reactions if they are told specific recordings were made under influence of drugs etc., citing Bird's famous "Lover Man" recording and similar others, as compared with those not informed passing good judgements on the same tracks.
My own view would be that the intimate relationship between performances and the circumstances surrounding them is of greater importance when it comes to jazz, whose spontaneous mode of expression is arguably more revealing than in classical music, where the composer adopts a mindset at one remove from the finished article, or for that matter any written down music. For me the problem of influencing a novice's viewpoint is as much to be explained by underlying prejudices or assumptions he or she brings to the session as by any standards regarding performance that have been imposed by authorities of whatever hue. If posts on this forum are to go by, many might appear to judge by comparison with previous events, recordings one has heard, or with other works by the same composer one judges better or worse: criteria which separate the serious jazz buff from the classical aficionado. I think Foster has something of a point but goes too far by situating the jazz listener in relation to the experience in the way one might view a listener strongly moved by hearing, say, Wagner for the first time, unaware that he was an antisemite and Hitler's favourite composer.
There should be one proviso, namely that the listener should first hear the music before being told of its circumstances. If that listener is moved by Charlie Parker's "Lover Man" solo - without knowing of its circumstances or the mental and physical state Parker was in at the time - then "jazz education" will have instilled its jazz induction in a manner accordant with the authentic spirit of the music, which is one that speaks through the music rather than through any narrative or predisposing pre-narrative. I do however believe further knowledge of the kind Foster claims to be pre-judgemental on the music is essential if one wants to delve into the essential background to gain full appreciation of this kind of music.
Comment